Radiation burden and associated cancer risk for a typical population to be screened for lung cancer with low-dose CT: A phantom study

Recurrent medical imaging exposures for the care of patients: one way forward

Medical imaging is both valuable and essential in the care of patients. Much of this imaging depends on ionizing radiation with attendant responsibilities for judicious use when performing an examination. This responsibility applies in settings of both individual as well as multiple (recurrent) imaging with associated repeated radiation exposures. In addressing the roles and responsibilities of the medical communities in the paradigm of recurrent imaging, both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) have issued position statements, each affirmed by other organizations. The apparent difference in focus and approach has resulted in a lack of clarity and continued debate. Aiming towards a coherent approach in dealing with radiation exposure in recurrent imaging, the IAEA convened a panel of experts, the purpose of which was to identify common ground and reconcile divergent perspectives. The effort has led to clarifying recommendations for radiation exposure aspects of recurrent imaging, including the relevance of patient agency and the provider-patient covenant in clinical decision-making. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: An increasing awareness, generating some lack of clarity and divergence in perspectives, with patients receiving relatively high radiation doses (e.g., ≥ 100 mSv) from recurrent imaging warrants a multi-stakeholder accord for the benefit of patients, providers, and the imaging community. KEY POINTS: • Recurrent medical imaging can result in an accumulation of exposures which exceeds 100 milli Sieverts. • Professional organizations have different perspectives on roles and responsibilities for recurrent imaging. • An expert panel reconciles differing perspectives for addressing radiation exposure from recurrent medical imaging.

Evaluation of an in-use chest CT protocol in lung cancer screening - A single institutional study

Background

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide and therefore there has been a growing demand for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) protocols.

Purpose

To investigate and evaluate the dose and image quality of patients undergoing lung cancer screening (LCS) using LDCT in Norway.

Materials and Methods

Retrospective dosimetry data, volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose-length product (DLP), from 70 average-size and 70 large-size patients who underwent LDCT scan for LCS were included in the survey. Effective dose and size-specific dose were calculated for each examination and were compared with the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) requirement. For a quantitative image quality analysis, noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were determined for different regions in the chest with two iterative reconstruction techniques, iDose and Iterative Model Reconstruction. Differences in dose and image quality between average-size and large-size patients were evaluated by Independent sample t test, and Wilcoxon signed rank test within the same patient group.

Results

The independent sample t test revealed significant differences (p < .05) in dose values between average-size and large-size patients. Mean CTDIvol and DLP for average-size patients were 2.8 mGy and 115 mGy.cm, respectively, with appropriate increment for the large-size patients. Image quality (image noise, SNR, and CNR) did not significantly differ between patient groups when images were reconstructed with a model based iterative reconstruction algorithm.

Conclusion

The screening protocol assessed in this study resulted in CTDIvol values that were compliant with AAPM recommendation. No significant differences in objective image quality were found between patient groups.

Capability for dose reduction while maintaining nodule detection: Comparison of silver and copper X-ray spectrum modulation filters for chest CT using a phantom study with different reconstruction methods

PURPOSE

To compare the capability of CTs obtained with a silver or copper x-ray beam spectral modulation filter (Ag filter and Cu filter) and reconstructed with FBP, hybrid-type IR and deep learning reconstruction (DLR) for radiation dose reduction for lung nodule detection using a chest phantom study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A chest CT phantom was scanned with a 320-detector row CT with Ag filter at 0.6, 1.6 and 2.5 mGy and Cu filters at 0.6, 1.6, 2.5 and 9.6 mGy, and reconstructed with the aforementioned methods. To compare image quality of all the CT data, SNRs and CNRs for any nodule were calculated for all protocols. To compare nodule detection capability among all protocols, the probability of detection of any nodule was assessed with a 5-point visual scoring system. Then, ROC analyses were performed to compare nodule detection capability of Ag and Cu filters for each radiation dose data with the same method and of the three methods for any radiation dose data and obtained with either filter.

RESULTS

At any of the doses, SNR, CNR and area under the curve for the Ag filter were significantly higher or larger than those for the Cu filter (p < 0.05). Moreover, with DLR, those values were significantly higher or larger than all the others for CTs obtained with any of the radiation doses and either filter (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The Ag filter and DLR can significantly improve image quality and nodule detection capability compared with the Cu filter and other reconstruction methods at each of radiation doses used.

Cancer risk in healthy patients who underwent chest tomography comparing three different technologies

This research aimed to estimate the risk of cancer associated with patients without previous disease undergoing chest tomography. Siemens CT scanners have 6, 64, and 128 detectors. The Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation Reports - BEIR VII methodology was used. The study presented a sample of 64 patients aged between 18 and 80 years, in the city of Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais - Brazil. The IMPACT CT software and CalDose X CT Online were used to calculate the absorbed and equivalent dose from the Volumetric Computed Tomography Dose Index - CTDIvol (mGy) and Dose Length Product - DLP values provided by the equipment. CT-Expo Software was also used to estimate Specific Dose Estimates (SSDEs) values. The CTDvol results for the MG1, MG,2 and MG3 Diagnostic Centers in mGy were respectively 4.369 ± 1.352, 6.99 4 ± 1.53,3 and 9.984 ± 2.282 and the SSDE values were 3.800, 6.40,0 and 9,.500. The values for the equivalent dose, at the MG2 Diagnostic Center, by IMPACT CT, in (mSv) for the breasts, esophagus, heart, thyroid, lung and thymus were respectively 3.9, 5.7, 4.7, 1.0, 4.8 and 5.7. The CalDose Software, for the same equipment and the same organs, in mSv, estimated the values 7.4, 9.4, 11.1, 5.3, 10.8 and 11.3 for women and 7.1, 9.3, 11.0, 5.3, 10.2 and 10.9 for men. The estimated risk of cancer decreased according to the patient's age, but with a higher incidence for females. The use of each software must be carefully analyzed to avoid undue values due to the particularities of each one. The results also showed that the risk of developing cancer due to radiation decreases with patient age and is higher in females.

Radiation Exposure to Low-Dose Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening: Should We Be Concerned?

Lung cancer screening (LCS) programs through low-dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) are being implemented in several countries worldwide. Radiation exposure of healthy individuals due to prolonged CT screening rounds and, eventually, the additional examinations required in case of suspicious findings may represent a concern, thus eventually reducing the participation in an LCS program. Therefore, the present review aims to assess the potential radiation risk from LDCT in this setting, providing estimates of cumulative dose and radiation-related risk in LCS in order to improve awareness for an informed and complete attendance to the program. After summarizing the results of the international trials on LCS to introduce the benefits coming from the implementation of a dedicated program, the screening-related and participant-related factors determining the radiation risk will be introduced and their burden assessed. Finally, future directions for a personalized screening program as well as technical improvements to reduce the delivered dose will be presented.

Combined measurement of circulating tumor cell counts and serum tumor marker levels enhances the screening efficiency for malignant versus benign pulmonary nodules

BACKGROUND

The high false-positive rate for pulmonary nodules (PNs) from using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening can lead to overuse of invasive procedures, overtreatment, and patient anxiety. Therefore, it is very important to develop new diagnostic methods.

METHODS

A negative enrichment-fluorescence in situ hybridization (NE-FISH) approach was used to detect circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in patients with PNs. We evaluated whether or not the combination of CTC counts with serum tumor marker levels (CEA, CA 125, CYFRA 21-1, SCC) could improve the diagnostic ability for distinguishing patients with malignant pulmonary nodules (MPNs) from those with benign pulmonary nodules (BPNs). Moreover, the potential clinical application of this combination for the diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) with a diameter ≤2 cm was also investigated.

RESULTS

The combination of CTC counts and tumor marker levels had a sensitivity of 80.12% and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC_ROC ) of 0.853 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.800-0.897, p < 0.001) for the differential diagnosis of PNs. For early cancer stages, the sensitivity was 75.38% (AUC_ROC  = 0.780, 95% CI: 0.713-0.838, p < 0.001). In addition, for SPNs within 2 cm the combination of CTC counts and tumor marker levels was still the most valuable diagnostic tool with a sensitivity of 78.95% and AUC_ROC of 0.888.

CONCLUSION

The combination of CTC counts and serum tumor marker levels is helpful for improving the diagnosis of PNs, especially in the early stages of cancer and for SPNs within 2 cm.

Single CT Appointment for Double Lung and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Is the Time Ripe?

Annual screening of lung cancer (LC) with chest low-dose computed tomography (CT) and screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) with CT colonography every 5 years are recommended by the United States Prevention Service Task Force. We review epidemiological and pathological data on LC and CRC, and the features of screening chest low-dose CT and CT colonography comprising execution, reading, radiation exposure and harm, and the cost effectiveness of the two CT screening interventions. The possibility of combining chest low-dose CT and CT colonography examinations for double LC and CRC screening in a single CT appointment is then addressed. We demonstrate how this approach appears feasible and is already reasonable as an opportunistic screening intervention in 50–75-year-old subjects with smoking history and average CRC risk. In addition to the crucial role Computer Assisted Diagnosis systems play in decreasing the test reading times and the need to educate radiologists in screening chest LDCT and CT colonography, in view of a single CT appointment for double screening, the following uncertainties need to be solved: (1) the schedule of the screening CT; (2) the effectiveness of iterative reconstruction and deep learning algorithms affording an ultra-low-dose CT acquisition technique and (3) management of incidental findings. Resolving these issues will imply new cost-effectiveness analyses for LC screening with chest low dose CT and for CRC screening with CT colonography and, especially, for the double LC and CRC screening with a single-appointment CT.

Cost-effectiveness and health impact of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for never smokers in Japan and the United States: a modelling study

BACKGROUND

Never smokers in Asia have a higher incidence of lung cancer than in Europe and North America. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for never smokers in Japan and the United States.

METHODS

We developed a state-transition model for three strategies: LDCT, chest X-ray (CXR), and no screening, using a healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity analyses were also performed. Main outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life expectancy life-years (LYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and deaths from lung cancer. The willingness-to-pay level was US$100,000 per QALY gained.

RESULTS

LDCT yielded the greatest benefits with the lowest cost in Japan, but the ICERs of LDCT compared with CXR were US$3,001,304 per QALY gained for American men and US$2,097,969 per QALY gained for American women. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the incidence of lung cancer. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that LDCT was cost-effective 99.3-99.7% for Japanese, no screening was cost-effective 77.7% for American men, and CXR was cost-effective 93.2% for American women. Compared with CXR, LDCT has the cumulative lifetime potential for 60-year-old Japanese to save US$117 billion, increase 2,339,349 QALYs and 3,020,102 LYs, and reduce 224,749 deaths, and the potential for 60-year-old Americans to cost US$120 billion, increase 48,651 QALYs and 67,988 LYs, and reduce 2,309 deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

This modelling study suggests that LDCT screening for never smokers has the greatest benefits and cost savings in Japan, but is not cost-effective in the United States. Assessing the risk of lung cancer in never smokers is important for introducing population-based LDCT screening.

Image quality and pulmonary nodule detectability at low-dose computed tomography (low kVp and mAs): A phantom study

Background:

Nowadays, there has been a growing demand for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) protocols. CT has a critical role in the management of the diagnosis chain of pulmonary disease, especially in lung cancer screening. There have been introduced several dose reduction methods, however, most of them are time-consuming, intricate, and vendor-based strategies that are hardly used in clinics routinely. This study aims to evaluate the image quality and pulmonary nodule detectability of LDCT protocols that are feasible and easy implemented. Image quality was analyzed in a general quality control phantom (Gammex) and then in a manmade lung phantom with nodules-equivalent objects.

Methods:

This study was designed in a two steps, in the first step, a feasible low-dose lung CT protocol was selected with quality assessment of accreditation phantom image. In the second step, the selected low-dose protocol with an appropriate image quality was performed on a manmade lung phantom in which there were objects equivalent to the pulmonary nodule. Finally, image quality parameters of the phantom at the appropriate scan protocol were compared with the standard protocol.

Results:

A reduction of about 17% of kVp and 46% in tube current leads to dose reduction by about 70%. The contrast-to-noise ratio in the low-dose protocol remained almost unchanged. The signal-to-noise ratio in the low-dose protocol decreased by approximately 32%, and the noise level has increased by about 1.5 times. However, this reduction method hardly affected the detectability of nodules in man-made pulmonary phantom.

Conclusions:

Here, we demonstrated that the LDCT scan has an insignificant effect on the perception of lung nodules. In this study, patient dose in lung CT was reduced by modifying of kVp and mAs about approximately 70%. Hence, to step in toward low-dose strategies in medical imaging clinics, using easy-implemented and feasible low-dose strategies may be helpful.

Latest CT technologies in lung cancer screening: protocols and radiation dose reduction

The aim of this review is to provide clinicians and technicians with an overview of the development of CT protocols in lung cancer screening. CT protocols have evolved from pre-fixed settings in early lung cancer screening studies starting in 2004 towards automatic optimized settings in current international guidelines. The acquisition protocols of large lung cancer screening studies and guidelines are summarized. Radiation dose may vary considerably between CT protocols, but has reduced gradually over the years. Ultra-low dose acquisition can be achieved by applying latest dose reduction techniques. The use of low tube current or tin-filter in combination with iterative reconstruction allow to reduce the radiation dose to a submilliSievert level. However, one should be cautious in reducing the radiation dose to ultra-low dose settings since performed studies lacked generalizability. Continuous efforts are made by international radiology organizations to streamline the CT data acquisition and image quality assurance and to keep track of new developments in CT lung cancer screening. Examples like computer-aided diagnosis and radiomic feature extraction are discussed and current limitations are outlined. Deep learning-based solutions in post-processing of CT images are provided. Finally, future perspectives and recommendations are provided for lung cancer screening CT protocols.

Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening Engagement from the Patient and Provider Perspective

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT reduces mortality among high-risk current and former smokers and has been covered by public and private insurers without cost sharing since 2015. Patients and referring providers confront numerous barriers to participation in screening. To best serve in multidisciplinary efforts to expand LCS nationwide, radiologists must be knowledgeable of these challenges. A better understanding of the difficulties confronted by other stakeholders will help radiologists continue to collaboratively guide the growth of LCS programs in their communities. This article reviews barriers to participation in LCS for patients and referring providers, as well as possible solutions and interventions currently underway.